 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moore v. Johnson9/26/2000
This is a personal injury action arising out of an automobile accident. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant and an unidentified driver were equally at fault in causing the accident. The defendant appeals, raising issues that require us to determine whether there is material evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict. We conclude that there is material evidence to support the verdict and thus affirm the judgment.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed;
Case Remanded
Charles D. Susano, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Herschel P. Franks and D. Michael Swiney, JJ., joined.
OPINION
I. Facts
This accident occurred on Highway 33 in Knox County, a four-lane highway divided by a paved median. The plaintiff, Christopher J. Moore, was driving in the left northbound lane. The defendant, Robert S. Johnson, was driving in the left southbound lane. The defendant was attempting to pass a white van in the right southbound lane when the van suddenly swerved approximately six feet into the defendant's lane. To avoid the van, the defendant moved to the left, crossed the paved median and struck the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff was thrown from his vehicle and suffered multiple serious injuries. The driver of the white van was never identified. There was no contact between the defendant's vehicle and the white van.
The plaintiff sued Johnson ("the defendant") and "John Doe I," the unidentified driver of the white van, alleging that both were negligent. The case proceeded to trial. At the close of all the proof, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant and the unidentified driver were each 50% at fault for the accident. The jury determined that the plaintiff's total damages were $387,500. The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $193,750, being 50% of the total damages. Thereafter, the defendant filed a post-judgment motion, seeking a remittitur, or, in the alternative, a new trial, and moved for a judgment in accordance with his prior motion for a directed verdict. The trial court approved the jury's verdict and denied the defendant's motions.
II. Issues
The defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred (1) by not granting the defendant's motion for directed verdict; and (2) by approving the jury's verdict and denying the defendant's motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, a remittitur.
III. Standard of Review
We review the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for a judgment in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict as we would a denial of a directed verdict motion. Holmes v. Wilson, 551 S.W.2d 682, 685 (Tenn. 1977). A directed verdict is appropriate only when the evidence is susceptible to but one conclusion. Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587, 590 (Tenn. 1994). We must take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence favoring the opponent of the motion. Id. In addition, all reasonable inferences in favor of the opponent of the motion must be allowed, and all evidence contrary to the opponent's position must be disregarded. Id.
In performing its function as a thirteenth juror, a trial court must weigh the evidence to determine if the court is independently satisfied with the jury's verdict. Ridings v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 894 S.W.2d 281, 288 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). When a trial court has approved a verdict, our review is limited to a determination of whether there is material evidence to supp
Page 1 2 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|